I saw resized comparisons between D800 and D700. D800 seems to have little more detail. But hardly justifying 3x mp count and file sizes.

300% jump on mp count for 3% more detail? I don't think D800 would allow aggressive cropping as some hoped.

-- hide signature --

^
^

Just Shoot !

Huh?

You looked at resized shots and didnt see much more detail? That's not so surprising is it? Especially as the detail is limited by the viewing size (I guess your monitor isn't larger than 30 inches) and resolution (I guess your monitor isn't more than 100dpi)

And how does resizing have anything to do with cropping?

Look at the imaging resource comparisons, and check out the white paper wheel on the right. At 100% I see
FAR
more detail in the d800 shots. And I could crop that little piece out and have a significantly more detailed photo of the wheel than I could with the d700.

I don't understand how you made the jump between a resized image and making a statement about cropping. Those two things have almost nothing to do with each other. A crop is taking a piece of the original file. Resize is changing that original file and downsampling it.

I saw resized comparisons between D800 and D700. D800 seems to have little more detail. But hardly justifying 3x mp count and file sizes.

ABSOLUTELY worth it for me. At low ISO, the D800 has much more detail (3X) at full resolution than D700 at full resolution. At high ISO, I can downsize and get detail and noise performance that exceeds the D700 and gets close to D3S/D4 levels. I can also use the DX crop mode and get performance that equals or betters the D7000.

In short, the D800 gives me massive flexibility, and the only downsides are (i) a bit lower FPS, which doesn't matter to me at all, and (ii) bigger filesizes. With respect to bigger filesizes, hard drives are now cheap as chips, and in fact are about 1/6 the price per GB than they were when the D700 was released.

People use re-sized images for comparison because it's a logical way to compare how the images will look at when printed or uploaded to the web at the same size. That doesn't mean every D800 owner is going to be re-sizing their photos to 12 megapixels. With the D800 you'll be putting a lot more pixels on the same area of your subject, and consequently a lot more detail will be resolved. Whether you need or want to use that detail, and whether it's worth it is up to the individual photographer.

The D800 also has better DR, high ISO performance, and color accuracy with all it's extra pixels. Asking if it's "worth it" makes it seem like you're sacrificing something as far as image quality.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/

I saw resized comparisons between D800 and D700. D800 seems to have little more detail. But hardly justifying 3x mp count and file sizes.

ABSOLUTELY worth it for me. At low ISO, the D800 has much more detail (3X) at full resolution than D700 at full resolution. At high ISO, I can downsize and get detail and noise performance that exceeds the D700 and gets close to D3S/D4 levels. I can also use the DX crop mode and get performance that equals or betters the D7000.

In short, the D800 gives me massive flexibility, and the only downsides are (i) a bit lower FPS, which doesn't matter to me at all, and (ii) bigger filesizes. With respect to bigger filesizes, hard drives are now cheap as chips, and in fact are about 1/6 the price per GB than they were when the D700 was released.

Exactly. That's what I've always said to myself. But a lot of people don't get it.

I saw resized comparisons between D800 and D700. D800 seems to have little more detail. But hardly justifying 3x mp count and file sizes.

300% jump on mp count for 3% more detail? I don't think D800 would allow aggressive cropping as some hoped.

My advice to you, the D800 is going to be a bad camera and a flop, don't even bother to compare or to read anything about it, you have your precious D700 which is way better, just keep shooting, don't lose sleep over those who want to chose a camera which is not justified according to you. Have a good sleep.

Were these images jpegs posted on the web resampled down to 72ppi which essentially blows away the bulk of the fine detail?

My final outputs are prints. My D700 will give me a 12" x 18" print at 230-240 ppi. The D800 will give it to me at 300ppi and I need to down sample the D800 files by about 20% to get to 300 ppi at 12" x 18" This is a 25% increase in print resolution even with having to blow away 20% of the information I captured in the D800.

I'm thinking 36 megapixel, based on everything I have heard from 24 mp D3X users, will be a substantial boost in resolution.

I saw resized comparisons between D800 and D700. D800 seems to have little more detail. But hardly justifying 3x mp count and file sizes.

300% jump on mp count for 3% more detail? I don't think D800 would allow aggressive cropping as some hoped.

Cropping has always been a bad idea, so I dont know why that would change with a new camera model. As soon as you start to crop, you basically throw away precious light that you paid huge amounts for in camera and lenses to be able to collect.

What the D800 will definately do better than the D700 or probably any other 35mm DSLR, is making really large prints from shots taken with careful technique and an excellent lens.

What the more techincal minded persons in here are discussing and showing is that the D800 will be the equal to the D700 (or the D7000) or even a little better (your 3% comes to mind) after you have :
a) paid for upgrade to the D800 with your own money
b) learned to live with the slower frame rate
c) learned to live with the file handling or upgraded your computer
d) applied various PP

If you need reach (or "crop") buy a D7000 to go with your D700 or even a 1-series. Cheaper, and does the same thing without the hassle.